Perhaps it is not the best time of year to criticize or question the Church, but this is something I've noticed for quite a while now, and while I've talked about it with my Priest, I still don't feel like it has been adequately answered. Here is the problem: I cannot accept that the Orthodox Church is the "pillar and ground of the truth" like St. Paul says. The reason to me is that it just seems like the Church has always been so inconsistent with its stance on issues, and always more influenced and united with secular power than with the truth.
A few historical issues that come to mind are the topics of slavery, polygamy vs. monogamy, fornication and tollhouses. In regards to slavery, this is a complex issue. The Church's modern position is that it is wrong and evil, however, historically, that doesn't seem to be the case. How come then many monasteries hosted slave auctions for Gypsies and the Russian Church was the biggest supporter of Serfdom in Europe? Among the Fathers, most seemed to be silent on the issue of slavery. And the ones who did speak about it either condemned it entirely as evil (like St. John Chrysostom and one of the St. Gregories, can't remember which) or at least did not approve of it. That being said, why didn't the Church listen to the Fathers and why has it waited until now to finally condemn the practice? It didn't stop the Church in the past from indulging in the practice, and the Church never did anything about the issue. Once again, it seems like the Church just ignored the Fathers and went with the secular world until the secular world decided to condemn it. Have you ever noticed that the Church didn't officially condemn slavery until AFTER the secular world had abolished it for the most, relatively recently?
It seems to me like the Church cares more about appealing to the secular world than adhering to the truth. It's quite shameful honestly that the secular world stood up for a good cause whereas the Church didn't do squat. Aren't we supposed to be the pillar and ground of truth that enlightens humanity and tries to promote good? It seems like the secular world did pretty well in regards to this issue without the Church--which only indulged in slavery and Serfdom. Likewise, why did we wait so long before finally condemning it? Once again, it seems like the Church only condemned it because it wants to match the trend of the secular world and make itself appear more appealing and modern to potential converts.
In regards to marriage--polygamy vs. monogamy, this is another topic that is not as clearcut as we would like to believe. How come in our modern times, the Church condemns polygamy, but during its earliest period, it did not? St. Paul never condemned the practice, nor did any of the New Testament writers. The closest we see is that he developed the concept of marriage as a Sacrament in Christ, but never limited a marriage to only one man and one woman--except in the case of clergy. So why does the Church condemn polygamy? Another example of it trying to match secular society's Puritanical Victorian ethics, adding to the Apostolic Faith? Next up, how about fornication? By fornication I mean sex between two unmarried people. This is NEVER condemned anywhere in the Bible--Old or New Testaments. Only adultery--which involved married people--was condemned, and the word "pornea" used in the New Testament that is often mistranslated as "fornication" actually only means "sexual immorality" and was mostly associated with temple prostitution. The closest mention we see at all to fornication in the Scriptures is an Old Testament law which said that if a man "seduced" an unmarried woman and they had sex, then he had to pay a larger dowry to her father and they got married.
So why does the Church condemn fornication as of now? Seems very inconsistent to me.
Finally, some of the more modern issues; what about the tollhouses? This is something that the Church has been inconsistent on since day one. Some Fathers say they are 100% real, some Fathers believed in a concept similar to tollhouses involving a temporary state of judgement after death, but denied the doctrine in its totality, and some Fathers did not mention the issue at all or flat out rejected it. But what does the Church teach in modern times? Usually nothing; it's something that World Orthodoxy is silent on because it is such a taboo and scandal that the Church hasn't formulated an official position on. They don't tell their converts about this at all; my Priest never did, and when I brought it up, he seemed to be sweating bullets. Is this an example of dishonesty, manipulation and doctrinal cherry-picking that the Church has employed in order to fit in with modern society? It appears so to me.
It's just, how am I supposed to trust the Church's position on everything when it seems to be so inconsistent and influenced by the secular world? I mean, all throughout the Church's history it seems to have been closely united with the State. Just look at the Russian Church. I hate to say it, but the See of Russa is a joke; it always has been. Ever since day one it has been a theocracy tightly united to the State and has opposed anything that challenged the State. It supported Czar Nicholas who was a horrible leader, and supported the violence that the Black-class clergy and government used against the early Bolshevik protestors--many of whom ere White-class clergy who wanted a change because so many people were starving and dying. I hate to say it, but I can see why Lenin hated the Russian Church so much; it only cared about pleasing the State, supporting Serfdom and persecuting anyone who opposed the State. And now look at the Russian Church: barely 20 years after the fall of the USSR and it is already trying to reunite itself with the State by supporting Putin so much.
Or how about "Saint" Constantine? The man was far from a Saint; he was baptized by an Arian, murdered his own family and didn't do anything admirable. The only reason the Church Canonized him is because he gave the Church a lot of wealth and power. That's unfair and entirely contrary to Christ's message, you can't buy your way into Sainthood through giving the Church money. If Constantine were just an average joe who wasn't a rich and powerful ruler, he wouldn't even be considered for Canonization. Yet, I'm told to see myself as the worst of sinners because I lust, whereas Constantine is regarded as a Saint. That doesn't make any sense at all. I'm not denying that I'm a sinner, but I doubt I've done anything that would make me a worse sinner than Constantine, but he's a Saint and I'm nothing. Why is that? Because he had money and power, whereas I don't, and because the Church liked to unite itself to the State.
How am I supposed to accept that it's the pillar and ground of the truth?